Originally Posted by Joel saidBut if you set it up with a complicated platform their eyes glaze over. I say let's point out what they will agree with and not violate their perceived sensibilities. I think we can be specific by being less specific.

So if we are deceptive and take no specific stand, that is, have no specific planks, then we can trick people of any political stripe into voting for our nominees?

Can you explain that last sentence -- that defies definition, at least the common one. Is there another sense of specific you thought I meant?

BTW -- and this is REALLY important to me -- I am here because of the platform and principles. If those were to be contorted to fit your proposal, I will be gone.

__________________Cooperation, coordination, and clarity are essential to creating a political party based on equality. Cliches and equivocations will not move this or any other party forward.

Citizens United, the Tax Code and shipping jobs overseas, war, imperialism, bloated Pentagon and "intelligence" budgets, monopoly, corporate controlled news and information, commercial conquest of the internet, the FED, the Banking and Credit Card industry and usury interest rates, the Christian right and their prohibitions on women, and the for profit prison system are probably in a heap of trouble if Democracy Breaks Out.

If that is isn't coming from the left what is it? If that is your view Joel you are on left. Right wingers would have a whole different list of problems that need to be dealt with. People in the middle would probably come up with a list of pocketbook issues not based on ideology. To address these problems you listed we need more than just democracy. We need a left-leaning government. To be honest, I can't figure out how the Justice Party is going to attract very many people. Progressives who refuse to support the Democrats are mostly already connected with the Green Party. Most progressives support the Democrats and probably will continue to do so. Many independents do not follow politics and don't connect their lives to politics so they are probably out of reach. Many others tend to be conservative. In any case, I don't think there are many independents who would join a party on the left such as the Justice Party. So far it appears the Justice Party is not doing very well in attracting members which I think supports my thesis.

I'm sorry and no offense, No Difference. I'm not the guy making decisions for the JP, I'm voicing an opinion. We should recognize the party is small at this point and the underlying principles have attracted both of us. And while you apparently believe those principles are politically abhorrent to conservatives, I think they are not- in reality. It is what FOX news would have them think. And there is your deception.

Certainly the other side(s) would, as you inferred, call the JP platform "lefty" or socialist or worse, but I believe we can counter that with a thrust that uses the fundamental truth- we don't have a democracy. A lot of people aren't going to like that, they don't even realize it, but the GOP and the Democrats can't deny it. They are all about the money. And they are the ones saying "government is broken". All we have to do is agree.

I certainly don't think we should deceive people even if we could. I'm surprised you think I was suggesting it. I am saying without an honest vote, and more than two bought and branded talking heads, any position on any issue is just hot air- except one. I'm saying we need a unifying standard, an issue everyone will support.

We can't play in the current game. We are excluded by money. So is everyone else in America- registered Republicans are obviously voting against their own interests, and Democrats who think they're getting one thing wind up paying for another. If you're concerned about deception, talk to Obama, I didn't do it. But I'm ready to do something about it. How many disappointed and disaffected Democrats wish we'd had more choices? How many of them didn't vote for Obama but against the other guy? How many Republicans vote Obama because Romney scared hell out of them? How many citizens didn't vote at all? They're all saying "what for?" I'd like to tell them "Democracy, that's what for!".

Everybody knows the game is rigged. That's where we come in. We want to Un-rig the game. And we don't want to raise or spend Billions to do it so we become just like them. We have our fundamental issue that makes voting Justice- whether the voter is enthusiastic about the platform or only luke warm- the run-away first choice because it's common sense.

The JP is the party that want's real elections that aren't a Wall Street- Madison Avenue- K Street- Military Industrial Complex sideshow. When that happens eveyone can have their say about any issue they wish- when votes actually count-but not until. When votes count, we get public servants- not leaders- not royal families and political dynasties. And I think, no more revolving door. When votes count instead of money, office holders have to listen.

Since the Justice Party is new, it will continue a metamorphosis. as it expands it will continue to form a larger platform. Other voices will help mold it. But I don't believe the non-voting half of America will be interested. My focus is about making it inclusive on such a fundamental level that it and we, cannot be denied. We need to change the game entirely. What meed to galvanize people. What makes the Justice Party a clarion call? What can we use like a hammer on a podium? Justice- democracy- equality through an honest election system that belongs to the people. Not just the money people. Us.

The issue is too powerful to be ignored and no party or candidate can fight it. It's who we are as a nation... or were. We need to focus on that. The opposition can't win against common sense and truth. It's not a bullet point- not a post script- Big money stole democracy. That's exactly why Rocky Anderson is calling for getting money out of politics-because we can't have a democracy until we do. What is the point of the rest of the platform if we don't have democracy? And how else would we draw the millions of people we will need to restore it?

Robert, you make me smile. Me a lefty... Ok, if that's how you see it. I think I'm a Constitutionalist. And if we have real democracy, a lot of the stuff that hurts the average American will quit happening. But we need a voice. That voice is an honest election system. If honestly elected government leans left, that's ok. It's only my opinion that the majority of Americans would make war for profit- shipping jobs to hell and gone- and Stepford candidates disappear. If that's left, it's because the right took so much, there's nothing left but the left.

Frankly, I think I like patriotic if I must have a label. My former employees, my cleaning lady, my friends, think I'm a raging capitalist even when I provided profit share and bonuses. Oh well, they also thought I had it easy. But then they couldn't believe that sometimes they'd get a paycheck and I would not. They couldn't live like that they said. Little did they know that if I didn't do my job- no matter how many hours it took- they wouldn't have lived like they did. There's no reason to open the factory until somebody peddles the widget. It's all perception. I just want a level playing field and all the guff I got sold in Civics Class. If that's left, ok, I've met a number of former communists, they seem to be human enough, and have families. and friends, and they don't want the KGB coming to my door because I'm an American. I don't get that stuff, the labels are meaningless to me. No matter how you shake it, left right or center politics is all about taxes and who controls the money and owns the stuff. To me, labels don't matter much. I've been the president- a number of times. And how I kept falling for that job I'll never know- Dumb I guess. Hand me the broom or the shovel, it's easier.

Robert, please contact Ben Shaw in Texas. He's the Treasurer of the JP there. We have a plan, and you can help. I won't discuss it here. But you're concern about reaching people is at least partially addressed in that plan. So is raising a little money. I think it's all about connectivity. And I believe a straight on approach to getting people interested will be met with a blank stare by people who don't vote and cause a yawn with many who do. So, first ya gotta get their attention. We may have hit upon that. So give Ben an email and he'll clue you in to what we have in mind.

'm sorry and no offense, No Difference. I'm not the guy making decisions for the JP, I'm voicing an opinion. We should recognize the party is small at this point and the underlying principles have attracted both of us. And while you apparently believe those principles are politically abhorrent to conservatives, I think they are not- in reality. It is what FOX news would have them think. And there is your deception.

I think I am receiving your meaning, but that sort of "party" or "platform" is not the domain of individual political parties. All of the things you mentioned -- getting money out of politics, cleaning up how votes are counted, and so on, no need to list them all here -- are more in the domain of the political system, not any specific party within the political system.

Ending the Bush tax cuts is a rather specific party goal. You and I may disagree with the right wing, but they honestly (or dishonestly) believe that tax cuts for the rich drive the economy; at any rate, that's the agenda of many people, whether that sickening goal is morally or ethically right or not. We need not enumerate all of these more specific issues. It is the people who come together to reform specific aspects of the tax code and other issues, for the better or the worse for the people, who form what we call political parties.

I think maybe your vision of a "political party" is a bit different than my own. In my mind, there will never be any logical end to the political party system because so long as people see solutions to problems differently -- and for that matter, distinguish which things in life are problems in the first place -- there will never be an end to different mindsets about these things. There won't be any sort of "silver bullet" that will satisfy every last citizen, even if we could assume a political environment of "perfect" democracy. If you disagree with me on this point, please defend, but I don't see an end to bickering and disagreement amongst people; I see efforts to squash dissenting views as suppression, especially under what you and I (probably) agree to be a true democracy.

I'm more than 100% with you on the other part, though. In terms of "creating a more perfect" democracy, I have participated in much discussion and action surrounding Ranked Choice Voting (RCV), including petitioning for an RCV ballot initiative, as well as election reform, black box voting, and other structural system issues. But, guys, these things can't be done by one party unilaterally; changes to the political system takes buy-in from the existing power, corrupt as it is, along with support from other smaller parties we may fundamentally disagree with in terms of their specific platform goals.

On the positive side (and I know that is hard to believe coming from this cynical guy), getting these things changed is not as quite as challenged as you may think, but it takes working in coalition with other people, in a non-partisan fashion. It is understood in these coalitions that the parties, and individuals not affiliated with any party, must participate in these coalitions without their specific party agendas. I think that is what you want to do, Joel. We worked with Libertarians, registered Independents (that's a choice in AZ), and those with no party affiliation at all. We just had to check our party agendas at the door, as well as our tempers, in order to achieve anything constructive.

And the JP could well be an active participant in these fundamental changes and reforms toward a more ingenuous democracy. In fact, I pushed the GP to get more involved, but the internal party leadership ignored or resisted these efforts. Many times, outside groups and Elections Departments invited(!) the GP to participate, and they still didn't go. Now, if that is not dreadfully shameful I can not think of something else that is. We should take advantage of ALL the openings.

The fact that Elections officials requested a member of the GP -- a party that did not even have ballot access at that election -- should come and oversee the count demonstrates that not all of the system is corrupted. (Of course you should have heard the hoopla over allowing our coalition groups to examine the computerized balloting machines, but let's let that aside for a different thread.)

Moreover, the Republican Party of Utah uses RCV at its state nominating conventions. See, there are places for common ground issues, even with very different specific party agendas.

There is the system, which should be as democratic as humanly feasible; there is the political party which should be able to participate in that democratic system with the least barriers to entry and the fewest obstacles to fair representation. These are distinct, and these are both relevant. And our own party development can proceed even as these structural, systemic issues at times impede that progress.

BTW, I am NOT offended by what you say. I just hope you will give careful consideration of the distinction I make between "system" and "party." I do not see enduring and true democracy any other way. (I still think a true fiscal conservative would not be enamored by ending the Bush tax cuts!)

__________________Cooperation, coordination, and clarity are essential to creating a political party based on equality. Cliches and equivocations will not move this or any other party forward.

I don't think true fiscal conservatives would have a problem with ending the Bush tax cuts because they are concerned about balanced budgets. But they have been basically driven out of the Republican Party by Tea Party types who refuse to raise taxes on anyone regardless of the consequences. I think they are basically libertarians when it comes to financial matters. Just reading a book that describes this transformation of the Republican Party. The title is "As Texas Goes... How the Lone Star State Hijacked the American Agenda." The author is the very humorous Gail Collins.

I agree, ND, obviously there is a difference between a political party and a political platform. I'm afraid I don't understand the assignment of domains. If anything, someone, you, me, the JP, has to take up the issue that confronts us all. Democracy doesn't exist if individual people or corporations can control or influence it with money. I think that's our domain.

I understand you're advocating a system for Ranked Choice Voting. I don't pretend to understand it. But I do understand we can use Robert's Rules of Order all day and if in the back room somebody is fixing the vote, what's the point of the discussion...? I don't care how it's run as long as it's fair and everyone is represented and their voice, if they choose, is heard.

We're talking apples and oranges here. I'm interested in attracting all the people who don't vote, or are sick of the system and those who want a better political shake, and rallying them behind the honest banner for clean moneyless untainted elections and democracy. The JP platform makes sense, but it means nothing if we can't make a winner out of it.

Don't get me wrong or think I'm arguing against your idea that "a true fiscal conservative would not be enamored by ending the Bush tax cuts!" I get it. But that kid in mechanical drawing class in Florida, or the grandmother in Idaho, or the real estate broker in Seattle may or may not be interested. But as Americans, they don't like being bamboozled. And they don't like billions spent on a political race. Not with all our other problems. It's almost as though those fat cats don't want tax cuts so they can control the government with campaign cash. Gee doc, it hurts when i shoot myself in the foot. So quit shooing yourself in the foot. That's the message I want to see. Solve the problem. Don't make complex plans for better structured representation when your bleeding liberty and justice all over the rug. Our political system needs some surgery, so it can be restored to a healthy democracy. People can get behind that.

So in my opinion, we're talking about, as they say in the music business, the hook. Is it Bush tax cuts or is it restoring democracy that grabs people? Which one has the broader reach? Which one makes people passionate? There are guys who assemble the product and those who make the deal. If we can agree the JP platform is a contract, the next step is how to get the customers. But I'm like a lot of people, I despise party politics. The JP may be different, but as you pointed out, they resisted your ideas, or failed to take advantage of them, or something. That's what you get from committees. There may be a lot of good people on board, but a few bad ones poo the soup. Expect it. I'm not selling utopia, I'm trying to expel the card sharps and bunko artists on Wall Street and all their friends.

It's The People you have to please and that takes getting their attention and addressing their concerns, not some edict chiseling committee's laundry list. Not that the list isn't important, but it won't make the sale. Everyone is still waiting for that chicken in every pot or 40 acres and a mule. They don't believe political parties. That's why we need to make the JP more than another political party, we need to make it a movement.

Just as there are good salesmen and bad, one connives you into what they have to sell and the other reaffirms your wise decision for buying what you need. Tax cuts? Ok, but if Monsanto can buy your federal representatives with campaign cash, what do you feed your kids? It's a matter of priorities. It takes one political movement to move other political parties. You have to start somewhere, and the JP is where it starts.

There is no "assignment of domains," whatever that means. When I say "domain," I just mean the venue where some type of activity occurs. The JP cannot, on its own, change the entire political system. It HAS to be done with the concurrence of ALL parties involved, not just the one we might belong to.

OK, maybe the Bush tax cuts are not the best example. But we might point to abortion issues, including access, and we could also talk about the medical financing for it, and most of all, parental consent, possibly one of the most controversial aspects of all of it. There are religious conservatives who demand that if abortion cannot be outlawed entirely, they will still insist on parental consent. There are religious conservatives who demand outright illegalization of abortion altogether, there are others who want choice, but not other liberal social policy. So here is an example where it is not an issue of systemic politics, since each political organization (whether that be a political party or any other kind) may take slightly different stands on these. We have to allow dissenting opinions, right? This is not an issue the system can solve. But it is one that a democratic political system can address, and it will be addressed by some kind of deliberation, negotiation, voting, etc.

I want to belong to a party that addresses issues that are important to me in a manner I find satisfying. I don't mind that other parties have different views. People are all different, and as I said before, there is no "silver bullet" solution to every issue, if there is such for even one issue. Again, a strong democracy will tolerate dissent and differing opinions well. If it doesn't, can we still call it a democracy?

It almost sounds like -- and maybe I misunderstand, I don't know -- you want everyone in the world to ultimately come to understand that your party's solution must, in fact, be the most ... what, ideal? morally correct? I'm not sure, because I don't quite get what you want the JP to be. But even if you could define what that line is, I doubt you could get every last person to agree with it.

I know for certain that not everyone will support whatever my chosen party wants to do. Even if we did live in a country, or a world, where everyone had a PhD and understood every last nuance of every last issue we can deliberate, there would still be different opinions on how to best address each of those issues. In fact, I think that a world of PhDs might, in fact, produce many, many more potential ways to solve issues than we can currently. It would be a very dull democracy if every person, educated or not, arrived at the same exact conclusion on an issue; I think it is highly unlikely that could even happen.

Is there a problem with allowing for different individuals and groups with different ideas, each with the right to gather with other people of like mindset, to form political parties and/or other organizations as they choose? I am talking about the right to do this, not the certain ensuing mess that will arise. (I believe that true democracy looks like an Italian election!)__________________Cooperation, coordination, and clarity are essential to creating a political party based on equality. Cliches and equivocations will not move this or any other party forward.

Sorry we seem to be arguing here when I'm actually agreeing with you on most things. I just disagree wutg using the old paradigm which by it's nature is nothing new. Some of your statements prove to me, in their correctness, that the paradigm must fail to do what we must do, and that is to change the paradigm. You said:

"It almost sounds like -- and maybe I misunderstand, I don't know -- you want everyone in the world to ultimately come to understand that your party's solution must, in fact, be the most ... what, ideal? morally correct? I'm not sure, because I don't quite get what you want the JP to be. But even if you could define what that line is, I doubt you could get every last person to agree with it."

First of all it's not the JP per se I'm interested in. It's the platform of the JP that I'm interested in. I like it. I want to make it a reality. Is it ideal? No, it's not ideal because that list of positions should be common sense with everyone, but it's not Those goals should be basic to human interaction. But they're not- with everyone and that is why we're here. We may never achieve the goal of having everyone agree or believe in those things; To think so would be deluded. I'm sure you don't think that about me. You're right, that not every last person will agree on the platform positions of the JP. Still, they're things you and I agree are vitally important.

It becomes a matter of how to get these things implemented that I am talking about And not some other agenda you apparently think I have. I am advocating we use a different approach to winning offices and the public over and by that I mean all those disaffected folks from other parties (the full spectrum of political ideas) and those who don't vote at all.

I'm strongly in favor of gathering that support using modern techniques and tools.. I believe strongly that waiving a platform in front of most people, no matter how appealing those positions, will get us nowhere. It's been done. It's being done. It doesn't work. I'm for rallying the full spectrum with a single- understandable- standard. A call to action that is fundamental to all Americans. Our democracy has been stolen. Take the money out of politics and we can have democracy again just as it says in our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, and Bill of Rights. That's what I think will rally people from all walks of life and political thought. All of them? No. Enough of them? I think so.

The JP platform is already what I want it to become. I just want people to support it. To do that, you have to sell the idea and get around the ennui, the mistrust of political parties, the disgust with politics, and the prejudices against the common sense the positions the JP represents. I'm calling for focus. Give the people the one thing they already believe in and that has been eroded away- the democratic process. And along with it, restore their eroded rights of privacy and their liberty. -It's about self interest- not mine, theirs.

I'm convinced we have the tools to reach everyone, what we most do then is state a simple truth and inspire them to it. I certainly don't expect everyone to agree with every position, that would be illogical. But if the cause is more important than later arguable clauses, then you'll have function, action, and a movement. That is why I say the restoration of democracy is the best and certainly the most important cause we can have. I don't see how you can disagree with that, Robert-or misunderstand it. It takes real democracy or the common goal thereof, to make all the other platform positions work. I'm saying SOP party politics won't work. Even if we had the money, we still wouldn't reach the disaffected and the disinterested.

I'm going to offer one more example and then I'm going to back away. A dozen years ago certain exalted persons spoke of a new world order made possible by a Pearl Harbor event. Lo and behold, one happened. Then the process, which is not instant, of control and order was set in motion and the goal is obvious. It is that process which is the real Pearl Harbor event We have to reverse that attack on civil liberties and international banking's insidious coup. And just as you point out- democracy is as messy as an Italian election- I say so be it. That's how we roll.

I'm for rallying the full spectrum with a single- understandable- standard. A call to action that is fundamental to all Americans.

So, as an example, how will you rally the religious right to the JP, most of whom think that God should be allowed into the classroom, along with teaching creationism, and that religion should be prominent in public life as well? They are not some mere sliver of politics; unfortunately, they have dominated a large portion of Republican Party poiltics for years.

So do you simply exclude their needs, since they would not fit the JP platform, or do you go ahead and add religion and theology to the platform so they can be "included" even though that inclusion may well upset the rest of us here?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoelThe JP platform is already what I want it to become. I just want people to support it. To do that, you have to sell the idea and get around the ennui, the mistrust of political parties, the disgust with politics, and the prejudices against the common sense the positions the JP represents. I'm calling for focus. Give the people the one thing they already believe in and that has been eroded away- the democratic process.

You are right that we agree on a lot. But, to continue the example above, the religious right may have some prejudices against the "common sense" positions of the JP. So-called common sense is not a science, Joel; it is a selective wordview that, while should seem reasonable to people, not always is. If everyone agreed with what we call common sense, why are there so many different groups proclaiming they have the key to the answer?

Again, until all different points of view but one can be eliminated, people will continue -- by their right of assembly -- to gather in groups of various sizes and for different purposes with different aims, as well as some aims in common with some of the other groups gathered for the same type of purposes. They will attempt to form coalitions with other groups sharing their own affinities on certain things, but not on others. They may be called "parties" in some instances; they may be called "activist groups" in other contexts; they may be called "caucuses" in yet others.

In a fluid democratic system, people will be free to join any of these types of groups free of retribution or denial of rights or access. Each group will strategize to promote their concerns since that is why they share an affinity in the first place. Each will struggle to achieve their goals; some will succeed; others will fail, some due to infeasibility of an idea, othertimes due to poor timing or strategy. I am sure you realize all of this.

I wonder, and this is only a guess, if you are suggesting the sort of party "coalition" sometimes called a "bloc," such as the Bloc Quebecios in Canada, which is a sort of federation of Quebec political parties and organizations with certain common goals. I seem to recall use of this term in the US as well, many years ago, when referring to the alleged collective voting tendencies of various minorities, such as blacks, jews, and latinos. I know that once someone discovered that there really wasn't a "Jewish bloc" as such, since Jews are split between conservative and liberal, the term fell into disfavor after a short period of criticism; I haven't heard the term used stateside ever since. Likewise, the BQ is not static or "stable" by any means; the constituent groups do create some friction even within the bloc.

At any rate, and as I stated earlier, I personally am not in favor of modifying the platform as it stands, or changing principles or anything else really. I like it the way it is, and that is why I am (still) here. Perhaps we could make one or two minor changes, OK. If it were to change in any radical way due to pressure for more inclusivity of ideas working against the present goals, then I fear that it might lose internal consistency. The Democrats do this all the time for political expediency, and we know where that has led us.

__________________Cooperation, coordination, and clarity are essential to creating a political party based on equality. Cliches and equivocations will not move this or any other party forward.

Hey No Difference- We do agree. The quote of mine above answers your subsequent questions. I like the platform. But I know of only one constant in life and that is things change. I've no doubt that as more people come on board, more issues will be added. That's life. As to attracting the religious right, I'm not concerned one way or the other.

I'm sure there are enough of us who believe in the separation of church and state who will not let the JP be overwhelmed by any cult. The platform is Constitutionally viable as it stands, and we can afford to take on more if we attract more people. But the fundamentals are what will attract them after we get their attention with the most important thing of all- saving democracy.

Sure I want us to be as inclusive as we can be. But I think the one smart way to do that is with the single issue backed by the platform bullet points. We have to present a focused rallying point.

Even a person with strong religious beliefs can agree we don't have a democracy. And that our Constitution is secular in scope. Will that turn them off? Not all of them- they're Americans too. And those it does turn off probably have another agenda anyway. You know, you mention the religious right, but there are others, and they, if they think at all, also realize we don't have a democracy. But if we do, they have a better chance of promoting their issues.

Maybe they won't influence the JP, but they'd be able to make their pitch on equal ground on their own- if- we restore democracy. I don't think that's a bad thing. I hope that clears up my position for you. But please remember, I'm just one guy; What I say doesn't set or change policy. I'm trying to help make the JP a viable contender if not a complete tsunami in the face of the two party in-crowd and their system.

Not to split hairs, but I'm far more interested in attracting people who are sick of the two party system, those who voted for Obama because the felt they had no choice, those who were afraid to vote for what's his name, and those that did but still understand the system is broken and corporations are controlling it. And I'm very interested in attracting all those who don't bother to vote and invigorate them into a movement to restore.

It's young people we need and the disenfranchised or bored and distrusting. It's Occupy, and any thinking person on the League of Women Voters, The DAR, Job's Daughters, the NRA, the YMCA, the Sea Scouts, and members of the military, anyone interested in peace, ecology, and a much more humanistic approach to governance; and one hell of a lot of them are good Christians. There are economist types who believe we can get a better bang for our buck out of government. And while there are many more categories we can reach, we have to remember it's a single issue that unites- not complicated platforms.

I'm very positive about the JP platform. Once people have a rallying point, very few of them will be turned off by it. Some will only be on board to restore democracy. And many will become more politically active as JP members. We want more people to vote. And if the JP platform and candidates like Rocky are actually available, we will get our wish.

One thing I notice in your response is you claim that people who are interested in democracy will happily sit through the rest of a platform they largely disagree with simply because the JP's support for democracy (under your vision of JP's purposes) will outweigh any tendency for them to pick up, leave, and start their own party or parties to advance a "democracy agenda" plus the theocratic elements they prefer. Hey, wait! Isn't that the Constitution Party? the Tea Party? maybe others?

Once again, you believe that once they are in the party, these people will slowly be drawn into our other platform planks and then, finally, buy in completely to the overall platform. You believe that all people ultimately come to the conclusions that people in this party have accepted. I don't agree.

I would aver that probably all of the alternative parties (those outside the duopoly) believe that the system needs more democracy. That's because all of those parties are suffering from the same challenges of the existing political system -- they have their own ideas and preferences, but they can't get their foot in the door. It's not an issue for me to add democracy to our list of goals, but unless JP works with other groups on this, it won't happen. Democracy cannot be the result of unilateral pressure or leadership.

I guess you could say that my definition of democracy is, in essence, an agreement on the ground rules for debate and the implementation of policy; maybe that's why we don't see this the same way. __________________Cooperation, coordination, and clarity are essential to creating a political party based on equality. Cliches and equivocations will not move this or any other party forward.

Once again... you've misinterpreted almost everything I've said. And now you're telling me what I believe. I think I've stated what I believe clearly and I'm not here just for obtuse or oblique argument sake. I'm not taking a test. If you don't understand my answers, please don't twist them. Ask about what you don't understand and I'm open enough to answer you. Twice if need be, but not as a career move. The conversation becomes tedious. If you don't know what my position is by now, it's likely you never will.

Please remember, I'm not a mover and shaker with the JP. I'm here just like you as a private citizen, assuming you are, to speak and to learn. But I'm not at a job interview or running for office or taking a civics exam. I've stated certain concepts I believe in very clearly. And I'm a firm believer in avoiding minutia meant to distract.

I am sorry if you feel I am telling you what you believe. I was only trying to characterize my impression of what you said in your last post, which seemed to be contradictory to what I thought we agreed was what we call democratic. I am saying that a person should not have to join a specific political party or organization merely to enjoy democracy; in my mind, that would be very undemocratic! I think people should be free to choose their associations; I think you agree about that, right? All I was reiterating was my concern that democracy can only be achieved (I think, possibly you disagree) by working in coalition across party boundaries.

Also, if I was not clear, I tried to abstract "party" a bit by mentioning that affinity groups exist in many forms, including parties, coalitions, special interest groups, caucuses, etc. In this context I guess "party" is more the legal sense than our legislated political sense.

I will try to be more careful about this in the future. I won't make assumptions, promise.__________________Cooperation, coordination, and clarity are essential to creating a political party based on equality. Cliches and equivocations will not move this or any other party forward.

No, I'm not interested in impressions or characterizations there of. Nor in intellectual pretzel gymnastics. Democracy is one person- one vote. Democracy is an agreement under the Constitution, not some ad hoc committees of coalitions of political parties. And you don't need an agreement with all the other parties to decide you'll come out for Democracy and legitimate untainted fair elections and election access. Nobody is doing that. Nobody. The JP has the opportunity to make that a flagship issue. It's something all Americans can agree on and it's the most important issue we have. Nobody can say the People are in control of this government.

As to the rest of the platform, not everyone will like it. Again, a misinterpretation of what I said. I think there are a lot of people who will like it if they ever hear about it. My-whole-point is we have to get their attention.

"One thing I notice in your response is you claim that people who are interested in democracy will happily sit through the rest of a platform they largely disagree with simply because the JP's support for democracy"- If you don't call that ms-characterization I don't know what would be. I made no such claim. A statement like that would be stunningly stupid. If that's how you interpret what I say, the conversation is an utter waste of time.

Insert Photos

Web address (URL)

Image URL

If your URL is correct, you'll see an image preview here. Large images may take a few minutes to appear.
Remember: Using others' images on the web without their permission may be bad manners, or worse, copyright infringement.